Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - This Week in Stupid (29⧸07⧸2018)

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 29, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

25:39

This Week in Stupid (29⧸07⧸2018)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 29th of July 2018.
	This week, the UK government is going to ban online political activists from engaging in politics.
	I know that sounds extreme, but it's completely true and it's going to happen soon.
	So everyone better listen up because we have a real problem here.
	This is very important because it is non-partisan.
	The political wing of YouTube, Twitter and Facebook should sit up and pay attention, no matter what their political affiliation, because this is going to be used against everybody.
	Social media is people power and the establishment do not like it.
	If you run a social media presence and want to talk politics, this applies to you.
	I apologise if this week's episode is a little shorter than usual, but I had to script it, and all of this either happened this week or previously, and it's so important that I couldn't let it wait.
	Today, Sunday the 29th of June 2018, the BBC published an article entitled, Online Trolls May Be Barred from Being MP or Councillor.
	In it, they say, online trolls who intimidate election candidates or campaigners could be barred from public office under government proposals being considered.
	This stems from a 2017 parliamentary report that highlighted the significant factor of social media abuse of candidates in that year's general election.
	So let's take a look at this report.
	It's called Intimidation in Public Life, a review published in December 2017 by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
	Who are they, you are undoubtedly asking?
	Well, three MPs, one Labour, one Conservative and one Lib Dem, the only three political parties to have been in control of government in the last hundred years, and a small group of hand-picked academics and activists.
	And this is their assessment of how awful it is to be an MP on the internet.
	This document is the doom of internet activism by design.
	It begins with the seven principles of public life, otherwise known as the Nolan principles, with which I generally agree and apparently apply to anyone who works as a public office holder, but I don't see them being very well held to.
	This includes all of those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the civil service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental bodies and in the health, education, social and care services.
	This is a pretty wide-ranging set of principles then if they apply to literally every public servant.
	The first is selflessness.
	Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
	Career politicians are going to claim to be selfless.
	Are we serious?
	Because it would seem that this principle is literally impossible to fulfil in a democracy where every MP has to take into account their own self-interest in getting financed and elected.
	This is a ridiculous and unachievable standard.
	If it were simply worded, should put the public interest ahead of their own, it would be fine.
	But currently, this is a principle that delegitimizes every single elected official that we have.
	The second one is integrity, which is hilarious enough in and of itself when you remember that we are talking about politicians and that every single party takes millions in corporate donations.
	Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try to inappropriately influence them in their work.
	They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
	They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
	What?
	Are you serious?
	We're going to have to clean out Parliament then, surely.
	What about David Cameron's fracking initiatives that were directly advised by fracking industry bosses?
	What about Labour leader candidate Owen Smith's claims that Trotskyist fringe group momentum have taken over the Labour Party by fair means or foul?
	And that the many people have observed that Corbyn is the puppet of John McDonnell and the labour unions.
	How do we change the system?
	We've got to demand systemic change.
	This is a classic crisis of the economy, a pressure capitalist crisis.
	I've been waiting for this for a generation.
	For Christ's sake, don't waste it.
	John, I'm a Marxist McDonnell is going to claim that he's operating in the good of the public interest and not in the interests of advancing socialism by celebrating the 2008 financial collapse.
	Theresa May was operating solely in the terms of public interest when she decided to try and bring back ivory trading and she was accused of bowing to pressure from the powerful antiques industry lobby.
	Where is this integrity?
	The third point is the most laughable.
	Objectivity.
	Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on the merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
	There is no way a single politician can do this because every single politician is an activist.
	This is beyond the capacity of a politician by definition.
	Imagine trying to hold Diane Abbott to this standard.
	Why is there?
	Why is it right to wear a Maoist t-shirt?
	But obviously wrong, as it is, to wear a Hitler t-shirt.
	I suppose some people will judge that on balance.
	Ma did more good than harm.
	We can't say that about the Nazis.
	What was the remind me of the seriously?
	Well, it's funny, I just had this debate with myself.
	I wish this were in private.
	Well, I just had this debate with myself.
	I don't like all the lefty dictators.
	Mao killed tens of millions of people.
	Just tell me what was the good that he did that made up for the 60 million people he murdered.
	He led his country from feudalism.
	He helped to defeat the Japanese.
	And he left his country on the verge.
	No, well, and he left his country on the verge of the, you know, the great economic success they're having now.
	The fourth is accountability.
	Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
	Well, this is amazingly ironic given that this document is designed to do precisely the opposite, as accountability is the root of the problem in the first place.
	Whether we like it or not, social media is holding these politicians to account.
	People are allowed to have opinions about you and they're allowed to tell you about them even if they're not nice opinions.
	I'd know.
	There are many communities who hate me and oppose me because of my politics, and I have to deal with their insults on a daily basis.
	The easiest thing to do would be to not read your notifications, but the best thing to do would be to listen to their issues and stop dismissing them as trolls.
	They aren't, even if they disagree with you.
	They are people with sincerely held convictions and they think that you are taking punitive action against them out of malice.
	And your arrogance and self-righteousness is what prevents you from engaging with them as regular people.
	The best thing you can do is take the mean ones with good humour, as Sadiq Khan actually does.
	Am I the only one who thinks Sadiq Khan looks like a pigeon?
	I really don't think that's true.
	More like a silver fox, no?
	Sidiq Khan looks like a sparrow.
	Better than a pigeon, I guess.
	Sidiq Khan looks like a really shit stunt double Jose Mourinho.
	As a lifelong literal supporter, I find that deeply offensive.
	And the tweets like these that are actually already illegal should be prosecuted.
	If you use a knife to mutilate your daughter's vagina, will the full force of the law be brought down on you?
	Asking for a Muslim.
	There's an easy solution for terrorism.
	Deport the Muslims, starting with your pathetic self.
	But now watch Sadiq Khan claim that it's not about himself and hides behind the potential hurt to the abstract groups of unnamed people that might maybe have a problem with it, possibly.
	I don't read this out to be portrayed as a victim, but I worry about what happens when young boys and girls from minority backgrounds see this kind of thing on their social media timelines or experience it themselves.
	And what about young girls and women who have been driven from these platforms, reversing our long fight for gender equality?
	Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have brought huge benefits to society, but also significant challenges.
	We've already seen evidence of elections and referendums being influenced.
	A rise in extreme propaganda and online abuse, misogyny and religious hatred, fake news spreading disinformation, algorithms blinkering us from different points of view and pushing people to extremes.
	And terrorists and far-right groups using social media to only inspire, but to radicalise and brainwash others.
	It is on the strength of this weak argument and vague evidence, if you can even call it that, that they wish to create the most significant political changes of the digital age.
	I'm sorry, this is unacceptable and it must be stopped.
	The fifth is openness.
	Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner.
	Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for doing so.
	And to this I say, mm-hmm.
	The sixth is honesty.
	Holders of public office should be truthful.
	Yes, I'm sure they should.
	The seventh is leadership.
	Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour.
	They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour whenever it occurs.
	Are you serious?
	What about Jess Phillips laughing at and heckling Philip Davies about having a debate on men's issues on International Men's Day?
	Because of course not only do we have International Women's Day, we also have women and equality questions every month in the chamber which we don't have for men.
	So the opportunity for men to raise issues that are important to them is very limited.
	And just to give you a flavour, Mr. Chairman, of the type of things that may come up and which will be part of International Men's Day, I'm not entirely sure why it's so humorous.
	You have to excuse me for laughing, that the idea that men don't have the opportunity to ask questions in this place is a frankly laughable thing as I say as this as the only woman on this committee.
	It seems like every day to me isn't.
	Well I wasn't I wasn't making with men.
	I wasn't making that point.
	I wasn't making the point that men don't have an opportunity to ask.
	I was about men's issues.
	There's a very big difference between men raising issues and the raising of men's issues.
	I don't care about men's issues.
	It's that I'm hoping for parity myself.
	I absolutely care about men's issues.
	And when I've got parity and when women in these buildings have parity, you can have your debate.
	Mr. Chairman, if I can just, if I could just make the point that I'm not requesting a debate on representation within the House of Commons.
	I'm asking for debates on men's issues.
	And the list of issues I gave earlier, I would like to think people can recognise are genuine issues and actually are very, very rarely debated in the House of Commons.
	Very rarely debated in the House of Commons.
	Is that upholding a set of rigorous principles by challenging poor behaviour, or is she acting like a feminist bully?
	Parliament is riddled with people who are already and often flagrantly violating these principles, and now the established political parties want to cut off any avenue for advancement for outsider parties according to standards to which they do not hold themselves.
	One rule for them and another rule for the plebs.
	This is from the executive summary.
	Our recommendations stand as a package.
	They should be implemented together as a comprehensive response to an issue of central importance to our representative democracy.
	It is clear that determined action on the part of all involved is required.
	The cost of not doing so is too high.
	The cost to them, the politicians.
	This is because, currently, social media companies do not have liability for the content on their sites, even where that content is illegal.
	And it is clear, however, that this legislation is out of date.
	The time has come for companies to take more responsibility for illegal material that appears on their platforms.
	And apparently, material that is not illegal, at least not yet, because they want to make social media companies liable for the mean comments sent to MPs.
	This cannot be allowed to happen, as the people sending the comments are the ones responsible for them, and it will give the MPs a stick with which to beat the social media platforms indefinitely.
	Here are a couple of examples of these 33 recommendations.
	The government should seek to legislate to shift the balance of liability for legal content to the social media companies away from them being passive platforms for illegal content.
	Given the government's stated intention to leave the EU single market, legislation can be introduced to this effect without being in breach of EU law.
	We believe government should legislate to rebalance this liability for illegal content and thereby drive change in the way social media companies operate in combating illegal behaviour online in the UK.
	This is an incredible shift in power in favour of the government.
	Now, instead of being forced to take personal responsibility for the things they say, MPs and other public officials can simply force the social media platforms by increasing the intensity of what is or is not illegal at their leisure.
	They are, after all, the lawmakers.
	This will give the two ruling parties phenomenal control over who holds the reins here.
	The government should consult on the introduction of a new offence in electoral law of intimidating parliamentary candidates and party campaigners.
	And they are defining intimidation as words and/or behaviour intended or likely to block or deter participation which could reasonably lead to an individual wanting to withdraw from public life.
	Well, what does that involve?
	If it's death threats and harassment, those things have already been criminalised.
	So what is this recommendation for?
	The definition of intimidation is so broad that it encompasses normal things said as long as from the perspective of the person that they are being said to, they are intimidatory.
	And this includes the following.
	Social media companies must do more to prevent users being inundated with hostile messages on their platforms and to support users who become victims of this behaviour.
	How?
	How can they do that?
	If a politician goes on TV and says something controversial that garners a backlash, how can social media companies prevent the public from taking to social media and talking about it?
	Ban hashtags?
	Put a daily at-limit on people's accounts?
	The leaders of the US, India, China, Australia, every single one of our allies, the Bank of England, the IFS, the IMF, the CBI, five former NATO Secretary Generals, the Chief Exec of the NHS and most of the leaders of the trade unions in Britain all say that you, Boris and Nigel are wrong.
	Why should the public trust you over them?
	I'm not asking the public to trust me.
	I'm asking the public to trust themselves.
	I'm asking the British public to take back control of our destiny from those organisations which are distant, unaccountable, elitist, and don't have their own interested heart.
	Absolutely.
	But the Lord High Chancellor, the conspiracy of elites, it sounds like something like Wolf Wall.
	Well, I haven't seen Wolfall, but the one thing that I would say is that the people who are backing the Remain campaign are people who've done very well, thank you, out of the European Union, and the people increasingly absolutely of this country at last get a fair deal.
	I think the people in this country have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms.
	I bet Gove's mentions were an absolute bloodbath.
	After that, was he being harassed by hostile messages from blue check marks, or were they simply engaging in public dialogue because of something that he had said that they found outrageous?
	And more importantly, where are the boundaries here?
	And of course, who commissioned this report?
	The answer is Theresa May, the quote-unquote conservative prime minister, back in July 2017.
	And the report regularly cites Labour MPs like Jess Phillips and Diane Abbott, who have been pushing this very same agenda for years.
	All of this is being done because of the nebulous claim that intimidation was putting talented people off standing for election, with the length of the ban on convicted abusers standing for or holding public office would be part of the consultation.
	Why?
	Because MPs are apparently receiving so much heat online that it's starting to get to them.
	And who is receiving the majority of the mean tweets?
	Apparently male conservative MPs, according to an analysis by the University of Sheffield.
	Apparently, MPs are being advised to just quit Twitter altogether because they receive so much abuse.
	Conservative MP Nadim Dorries said that colleagues were being advised to close down their accounts by Parliament's Health and Wellbeing Service.
	Tory MP Andrew Percy told the BBC that leaving Twitter in 2016 was the best thing he had ever done.
	The MP for Brigham Ghoul said that it had not harmed his ability to do his job either as a minister or in terms of representing his constituents.
	Unbelievably, you don't need a Twitter account.
	And really, why do you want a direct line to the public?
	You know that there are going to be members of the public who will disagree with you vehemently on occasion, and if you have a Twitter account, they are going to tell you.
	And what does preventing online trolls from becoming members of parliament actually solve?
	Preventing certain people from running for office will not prevent any trolling or abuse on the internet, will it?
	However, it will prevent the rise of rival political parties springing up and gaining MPs like UKIP who are currently surging.
	Between the YouTubers joining, Batten's direct and truthful speeches and Theresa May's disastrous capitulation to the EU over Brexit, UKIP party membership has gone up by thousands and the latest YouGov polling shows that 31% of Leave voters now back UKIP when it comes to their border policy and 26% of Leave voters back the party as the best on Brexit.
	UKIP is coming back in a big way, and the establishment knows that soon popular, charismatic, and confident UKIP party members will be standing for parliament.
	The established parties know change is coming.
	Last week, Steve Bannon, ex-chief strategist for the Trump campaign, launched a non-profit populist foundation called The Movement, which the Daily Beast described as an attempt to hijack Europe for the far right.
	The movement is meant to be a political counterweight against George Soros's Open Society Foundation and will offer polling, advice on messaging and data targeting and think tank research to right-wing groups.
	Bannon said, right-wing populist nationalism is what will happen.
	That's what will govern.
	You're going to have individual nation-states with their own identities, their own borders.
	Oh, how awful.
	At least it is to Belgian MEP guy, the EU should be an empire vehofstadt, who said, we know what the nightmare of nationalism did to our countries in the past, and launched the hashtag campaign, Ban Bannon.
	Bannon's coalition of nationalist parties has been endorsed by Nigel Farage, who said that nationalist parties could become the new biggest bloc in the European Parliament.
	UKIP has already pledged to work with Bannon's new, quote-unquote, alt-right movement, which it isn't, and naturally Europhiles are calling it an unholy alliance to bring down the EU and fuel populism across the continent, because these elitists are terrified that it is going to work.
	Because it is.
	And they know that the rise of UKIP is not good for the Conservatives or Labour, which is why both parties are backing a move to block outsider candidates.
	This is not about left or right.
	This is about the populists versus the elitists.
	The attempt to prevent internet trolls from running for office is an attempt by the political establishment to ban people from political life who haven't committed a crime.
	Does anyone think that this wouldn't be used against someone like Count Dankula or myself if we tried to run for office?
	This is an attempt by the entrenched political class to prevent internet-savvy outsiders from rising up and gaining access to power in order to enact political change that we want to see.
	The populists are on the march and the elitist political establishment is out to stop us.
	They cannot be allowed to block political activists out of politics under the guise of them being trolls.
	This label will be used against anyone and everyone who challenges the status quo with a dissident political opinion.
	Put simply, they're trying to block us in real life, because otherwise they will have UKIP MPs in parliament repealing their attempts to control the political dialogue and laughing at them because someone called them a wee boy on the internet.
	Now, I'm used to the abuse online in particular.
	I'm regularly called a wee boy.
	I'm told that I wear my dad's suits and stuff, you know.
	The question our elitist MPs and MEPs should be asking themselves is why they are receiving so much backlash on the internet.
	How are they so out of touch?
	And why do they think that demonizing all political activity they don't like as trolling will protect them from the consequences of their own unpopularity?
	Right, they said they go, oh, look at this fear and loathing.
	Here's why it's fear and loathing.
	Right, the mainstream media.
	you're losing elections I understand when I'm not part of any propaganda I'm just a reporter.
	Just a simple observer.
	Just a simple simplified.
	You guys are the propaganda wing of the Financial Times of London, The Economist, the BBC, Channel 4.
	You're part of the party's on the list here.
	No, the propaganda army.
	No, no, no.
	No, because that's the opposition party.
	You're far too clever to be this simplistic.
	So I think you guys see it as fear and loathing.
	I think most people see it as a positive outcome.
	And by the way, it's like the Chinese say today that they are socialism with Chinese characteristics.
	Each one of these movements, whether it's in Poland, whether it's in the Czech Republic, whether it's in Austria, whether it's in Hungary, whether it's in Italy or the United Kingdom, it all has different attributes of localism.
	The party at Davos loves democracy until it starts going against them.
	And here's what's so stunning.
	These elections are not even close now.
	The rejection of the party of Davos in Italy is two-thirds of the vote.
	And by the way, the old paradigm of left and right doesn't even matter anymore because you had both a left-wing populist movement and you had a right-wing populist movement that's number one wants to reject what they're being forced-fed.
	It's a fine national identity.
	This is another thing.
	This is another thing that you're warning.
	This is a serious answer.
	You guys, this is what kills me.
	When you're winning elections, it's okay.
	But as soon as you're, listen, it's the rise of fascism, it's a rise of fear-mongering.
	You just, just for the simple reason, you can't convince anybody anymore to vote for the party of Davos.
	You've got about a third of the people that vote for it.
	Two-thirds of the people in country after country.
	This continent has voted for lots of different parties in lots of different countries since the Second World War.
	And some of them were left-wing, some of them were right-wing, some of them were center-left, some of them center-right, whatever.
	It's not just about the party of Davos.
	It is about preventing history from repeating itself in the most vicious form.
	Well, I thought this is a problem.
	I think people in these countries, I think when you go to Poland, I think you go to Austria, you go to the Czech Republic, Hungary, you don't see people here that are saying, hey, we want to go back to the 1930s.
	Remember, it was the elites in those countries.
	Those are the elites in the countries that drove people to war if you go back and look at the history of it.

▲